The Centrist
from Canada writes:
And Harper will embarass Canada again by airing Canada's dirty laundry internationally. More blame the liberals instead of getting the job done.

Whatever happened to the Energuide program that cut greenhouse gas emissions? Cut by the Harper government. Whatever happened to the 3 billion dollars in climate change funding that was put in place by the liberals? Cancelled by the Harper Conservative Government.

The Harper Conservative Government has money for makeup artists and a chef on the Harper's challenger jet. The Harper Conservative government had one billion Canadian dollars to give to the americans to sign the softwood lumber deal.

What happened to Environment Canada scientists who wanted to speak on global warming? Muzzled by the Harper Conservative government.

Canadian scientists muzzled on the topic of global warming by the Harper Conservative government. Funding and programs to mitigate global warming cut by the Harper Conservative government.

Don't fret Canada-the Harper Conservative government has a plan. It will respond-by personally attacking posters who attack the Harper government.

Stephanie Norris
from Powell River, Canada writes:
And, it was the Conservatives that hooted and hollered about any kind of environmental project to control G.H. emissions while the Liberals were in power. They weren't for it then, they aren't for it now. Sending Harper anywhere to discuss G.H. emission control is like sending the Pope to a condom conference--not much will get done, not much will be said that means anything, and we are supposed to put our faith in leaders' decisions. Guess what kids, the ball is squarely in our court now. The citizenry must act. Centrist has it right. So does the Canadian Action Party. But people are firmly stuck in their political dogmas so that when a marginal party actually says something intelligent it gets lost in the cacaphony of crap offered up by the major parties--policies implemented to decieve rather than educate the public. While it is true that the major parties continue to embarrass themselves with stupidity and feckless rhetoric, I am more embarrassed by the citizens who keep putting them in and expecting something different to happen. We can keep cherry picking details between Liberals and Conservatives (much like Democrats and Republicans) but in the end, both parties represent the same people--the ruling elite--so it doesn't matter who we send where--nothing will get done unless and until either the elite become threatened by their own choices or the public starts to act like it lives in a democracy instead of giving it lip service. Democracy, my dear friends, is NOT just about voting. That's the easy part. The rule of the people must bear the responsibility of who they elect and they must do it not out of dogma but through rational insight, skepticism and education---and I see very little of that at every election and even less when it comes to understanding the whole issue of climate change.

colin broughton
from Edmonton, Canada writes:
Thanks to Liberal and Conservative politicians who would rather emit hot air than make any real difference, we have all officially been nominated for a Darwin Award. The children we elect can argue about who did the least, but that does nothing to turn the tide of human foolishness. If we had any real leadership on this issue, he/she would use human nature, harness our ability to follow economic gradients, and end the false economy that leaves environmental costs completely off the books. Once a carbon tax is phased in, individuals and corporations will naturally walk toward lower emissions - no need for complex, top-down rules. Is that so hard?

Not the Alliance
from In my opinion the Harper Gov't is incompetent, and their paid hacks so brain-dead they have to hijack names to defend their dear leader., Canada writes:
Michael Sharp writes: "Dion was the Environment Minister for heaven's sake. They did nothing!"

Michael, I know you're not the sharpest arrow in the quiver, but what has the new gov't done in 20 months (which by the way is longer than Dion was Minister of the Environment)? And no, making a 180 degree turn from being climate change deniers to majority seeking "believers" and switching Ministers does not count.

By the way, what was Harper doing for the environment while in opposition? If the Liberals "did nothing", did Harper oppose or take them to task on this inaction?

Gerard Butler
from Canada writes:
Not the Alliance from In my opinion: And you call Michael not the sharpest, wow. You really don't know yourself, what do you think there were doing. The were doing their best to stop the Liberal Party from implementing a policy that would have crippled the economy by curtailing consumer spending. You think your jobs in Ontario are disappearing now, you should consider what kind of impact it would have had on you province if consumers and business no longer required your manufacturing capabilities. Chretien himself had no intention of implementing it, so what does that say about your precious party. How does that make you feel, eh. Your own impeccable leader, oh the great one. Isn't it considered fraud when you sign an agreement when you have no intent of actually implementing it. In my book that is fraud, it should be in yours too, if not, have I got a great property deal for you. If it isn't an issue for you, then I can now understand why you are so blindly a follower of your party. I for one don't support the Conservatives, but I, and a great majority of Canadians sure as hell don't support criminals, and you party sure seems to have a lot of them. By the way, Kyoto is a fraud, you know it and I know it, and now more and more people are starting to realize how much of a imbecilic UN sponsored program this was. It ranks right up there with the Oil for Food program, but involving a hell of lot more money. Just who do you think is going to have to pay for this programs implementation, eh? If you think it's going to be the big bad Corporations, well I suggest you pick a book on economics to and do a little bit of reading.

Not the Alliance from In my opinion the Harper Gov't is incompetent, and their paid hacks so brain-dead they have to hijack names to defend their dear leader., Canada notes,

"Michael, I know you're not the sharpest arrow in the quiver, but what has the new gov't done in 20 months (which by the way is longer than Dion was Minister of the Environment)? And no, making a 180 degree turn from being climate change deniers to majority seeking "believers" and switching Ministers does not count."

In 2005 3% of Canadians felt the environment was an important issue. (Globe 2007).

Rona Ambrose's Clean Air Act consisted of reducing GHGs 50% by 2050.In Europe the EU and Japan both signed onto reducing GHGs by 50% by 2050.In Sydney recently China and the US, to name two, signed onto reducing GHGs by 50% by 2050.

Not the Alliance
from In my opinion the Harper Gov't is incompetent, and their paid hacks so brain-dead they have to hijack names to defend their dear leader., Canada writes:
Gerard - take a deep breath and calm down from your straw man argument, incorrect assumptions, waste of words post.

So let me get this straight. You're saying that Harper was doing his best to stop the liberals from implementing, yet you're condemning the liberals for not implementing. Is that about right? Neat argument!

You "don't support the Conservatives". Let me guess - NDP? Green? yet anti-Kyoto? Of course you could be telling a bold faced lie too.... you give yourself away when you claim that the liberals are still full of criminals - that happens to be Harper's favourite slur!!

Let's keep it simple for your sake. I'm not a fan of Kyoto nor of Dion's nothing but Kyoto stance and I've stated that numerous times on these forums. But what has the "New" Gov't done on the environment in their 21 months at the helm other than change from climate change deniers to "it's not our fault" believers?

James P
from Spruce Grove, Canada writes:
Michael Sharp.. I've seen you write many things some sharp and some from a different drawer but you seem to always call 'em how it is. Just like that last post. Cheers

Not the Alliance
from In my opinion the Harper Gov't is incompetent, and their paid hacks so brain-dead they have to hijack names to defend their dear leader., Canada writes:
Michael Sharp writes: "In 2005 3% of Canadians felt the environment was an important issue. (Globe 2007)."

Exactly. And you deride Dion for getting nothing accomplished in Parliament in that environment. Now, when the environment is one of the most important issues amongst voters, the Harper "conservatives" suddenly pretend to embrace climate change and use Dion as a benchmark and an excuse for their doing.... exactly nothing. Of course, I shouldn't say "nothing" they are blaming the liberals...

James P
from Spruce Grove, Canada writes:
The new gov has implemented some of the toughest measures on the planet thats all, Not the Alliance. I disliked the Reformers and religious right and will vote different if this gov takes any steps towards religion and its rules. But have they? What has this gov done that has been so different from the liberals except actually getting things done? Under the last gov, I was waiting for them to do something about the environment, but Kyoto wasn't it. I knew it from the first day I read Kyoto. Its stupid. It does nothing except make others rich at our expense and does nothing for the environment. What will do something is the cons plan. Toronto will see clearner air, Alberta will see its GHGH decline even when our production rises. Yet people think this is nothing because it is not being spoken from the left. Yikes. Learn from your mistakes people.

Catherine Wilkie
from Canada writes:
The fact that Bush/Harper/Howard are in favour of 'aspirational' goals is frightening. Because of the change in weather, Australian famers are having to quit. Doesn't bode well for any of us.

Bill M
from Canada writes:
Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: The fact that Bush/Harper/Howard are in favour of 'aspirational' goals is frightening. Because of the change in weather, Australian famers are having to quit. Doesn't bode well for any of us.

What's your solution Catherine? Mine is we totally shut down every single fossil burning device in Canada. No more vehicles, hydro plants, oil fields, factories, furnaces, etc. Then we can freeze in the dark while reducing the world's CO2 output by less than 2%. And while we slowly starve and freeze to death, we will hear about the miraculous turn around in the weather in Australia, and how their farmers are returning to the fields. All thanks to the sacrifice of Canadians. Sound good?

Catherine Wilkie
from Canada writes:
Bill M: 'Aspirational goals' will unlikely curb the appetite of business to incur increased profit at the detriment of the environment. 'Aspiration goals' will unlikely undue the damage to health that occurs at the pace of unfettered growth or restrictions. "Aspiration goals" may attain the majority that this gov't desires. I mean, they're entitled to their entitlements.

won the war on terror/drugs now you lead us on the war on climate change ,thank God
from Canada writes:

Mark : 0310 Did you know that the 3 rd largest airforce in the world is the mothballed purchases ( unused ) at Tuschegee Airfield ?Greenspan can't say enough about Bush's fiscal abilities . Lead on McDuff don't read those flawed economic studies on climate change .

Bill M
from Canada writes:
Catherine Wilkie from Canada writes: Bill M: 'Aspirational goals' will unlikely curb the appetite of business to incur increased profit at the detriment of the environment. 'Aspiration goals' will unlikely undue the damage to health that occurs at the pace of unfettered growth or restrictions.

That would be th eunfettered growth an dlack of restrictions in China and india, correct?

As for the "appetite of profits" in business, name we one business that remains in business if they do not, at some point make a profit. You can slap all the carbon taxes you want on any business, and they will pass that tax onto the consumer in the end. Want to start a depression in Canada catherine? Implement Kyoto. Plain and simple.

As for their "entitlements", spare me. We've had enough of those from the Liberals. If the Cons pull the same crap, they'll get tossed just as quickly.

won the war on terror/drugs now you lead us on the war on climate change ,thank God
from Canada writes:
Catherine : Please don't blame lung problems , cancers and DNA mutations on some unproven theory like evolution . We are unearthing bones in the tar sands that prove history as laid out in The Book .

Brian Sexsmith
from Toronto, Canada writes:
Just what we need - another opportunity for the porky PM to get up in front of the world with his make-up on and embarrass us all by claiming to be a world leader in the fight against climate change. What an international laughing stock he has become.

"James P from Spruce Grove, Canada writes: Michael Sharp.. I've seen you write many things some sharp and some from a different drawer but you seem to always call 'em how it is. Just like that last post. Cheers"

Gordon Scott
from Lotus Land, Canada writes:
For the last 15 years Harper did nothing but attack the concept of climate change. Harper did not believe in man-man global climate change. Earlier this year we saw the staging of huge public announcements that Harper has decided to announce that he is going to fund solutions to the problem of global climate change (because it was becoming a political problem). And now I read that: "The Canadian government has decided to cut spending on Environment Canada programs that address climate change by 80 percent, and wants cuts of 40 percent in the budgets devoted to climate change at other ministries, according to cabinet documents obtained by "The Globe and Mail." In addition, wildlife programs and services within the federal department have been completely frozen, environmental groups say." For the full article on this story go to: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2007/2007-09-20-01.asp Harper has decided to take his climate change funding out of such Environment Canada programs as the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Network, which observes changes in ecosystems, which has lost 80 percent of its budget. This is all just a PR spin job to make it look like the current government wants to do something when in fact what he wants to do is massively expand production in the Alberta oil tar sands. Harper doesn't give a damn about the environment!

Can the Dion Liberal backers tell me exactly how Kyoto will be implimented in Canada? What will it cost? What industries will be effected? How will end user prices be affected? How export prices will be afected? Will there be a loss of additional manufacturing jobs? How would these jobs be replaced-what industry? How much more are you willing to be taxed to meet the Kyoto standards because this is not free? What type of alternate energy programs does the LPC propose and at what cost? How creating the "Kyoto Police" to verify emmissions will be implanted?

How will you force China to adhere-now the new GHG emitter leader, or the USA, where these both claim about 50% of GHG's? How would a carbon trading industry help average Canadians with wealth moving to other countries and people, to the detriment of our children?

For a Party that has complete tunnel vision concerning this Protocol, the answers should be at your fingertips.

I await! Convert me without putting people and the country in bankruptcy!

I believed i asked some pretty straight forward questions to a Party that appears to champion and breathe Kyoto 24/7 and expected answers to all of those questions and more. i have read their " Balancing the Carbon Budget" and it's all a bunch of hocus pocus gobbilygook.

They propose a "Green Investment Account" for all the new taxes collected-They say it will be run independently). I cringe when I think about the LPC having access to the hundreds of millions of dollars in a single account-if you know what i mean!

Then a carbo trading system within Canada, and one that matches Kyoto rules and regs.

Of course it will disappoint some, those that want to see Canada decline to a third world status country.

Many so called enviros are actually communist ideologies, using the enviroment as a smoke screen. Proposing solutions that will doing nothing to improve the enviroment while ensuring these solutions destroy the countries economy. Maurice Strong and Kyoto is a perfect example of such a proposal.

Ian St. John
from Canada writes:
Michael Sharp from Not the Sharpest Tool, Canada writes: The article ends with, "Since the 1997 protocol was signed by the Liberals, emissions actually rose. In Canada that's all you need to know. "

Until Kyoto was signed the Liberals had no legal basis for moving towards lower emissions and could only do small justifiable programs for 'energy saving'. The political flack for a major change focussed on emissions that was NOT supported by an agreement would have been more than ANYONE could survive.

Ian St. John
from Canada writes:
"Michael Sharp from Not the Sharpest Tool, Canada writes: In 2005 3% of Canadians felt the environment was an important issue. (Globe 2007)." Lie. In fact, over 11% voted for the Green party despite knowing that they had no chance of winning a seat. That alone shows that the environment was more of an issue that you claim. "Rona Ambrose's Clean Air Act consisted of reducing GHGs 50% by 2050." Lie. Rona Ambroses crap consists of unlimited increase until 2010 and THEN increases 'proportional to GDP'. So first you get to double your emissions per dollar, then you have to reduce them by 20%. Even when 50% kicks in by 2050, you can STILL be producing 100% if the current emissions and you can do that without regard for actual levels because it is 'intensity' based limits that allow unlimited growth with production increases. Note; The planet does not care about 'intensity' targets. It reacts to *levels* of GHGs not how much money was made making them. As an exercise in crap it is unquestionably a work of art. No wonder they killed it rather than have it exposed in the legislature. "In Europe the EU and Japan both signed onto reducing GHGs by 50% by 2050." Yes. And by that they mean TOTAL emissions regardless of GDP. This is REAL reductions in contrast to the Harper '50% our tripled and inflated price' plan. "In Sydney recently China and the US, to name two, signed onto reducing GHGs by 50% by 2050." They already had a commitment to Kyoto, missing only the first round. So they are committed to matching the REAL goals of the EU and other countries. "Do I detect a theme?" Only in terms that you keep reposting lies. "It appears the Clean Air Act resonates with the world." Rather they tried to fake the REAL commitments of the rest of the world by 'creative accounting' and got caught.

Ian St. John
from Canada writes:
"R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes: Can the Dion Liberal backers tell me exactly how Kyoto will be implimented in Canada?" No. It depends on political resistance and public pressure so how fast a liberal government can act is hard to pin down. "What will it cost? What industries will be effected? How will end user prices be affected? How export prices will be afected? Will there be a loss of additional manufacturing jobs? How would these jobs be replaced-what industry?" Not without first defining the plan for implementation. The best plan I have seen is the 'carbon tax' with compensating reductions to income and payroll taxes. But how much and how is it applied? Most economists back this plan as it puts market forces into play to force lower emission choices, not penalise emitters. "How much more are you willing to be taxed to meet the Kyoto standards because this is not free?" Non-sequitur. The claim that emissions reducitons have a 'massive price tag' can be easily seen as crap by anyone studying the issue. For example current coal plants are mostly from the 60's and convert only about 30% of the energy of coal into electricity. Modern plants convert about 44% so you can reduce fuel(and emissions) by about 33% with no cost. In fact, the recutions in fuel costs would pay for the investment. "What type of alternate energy programs does the LPC propose and at what cost?" No idea. No question that you can do it wrong and cost a lot. But why? "I await! Convert me without putting people and the country in bankruptcy!" "A fool convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still". You give away your political agenda by your fear mongering claims of 'bankruptcy'. However, other readers may find this reply interesting.

Ian St. John
from Canada writes:
"R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes: How will you force China to adhere-now the new GHG emitter leader, or the USA, where these both claim about 50% of GHG's?" You mean each claims about 25% of the emisisions. Of course, the U.S. does it with only a quarter of the population. But the issue is not about the population of countries but how much GHGs are produced. It is false logic to give Monaco or Vatican City the same share of a common resource as China, India, Russia, the U.S. or Canada. As China is a party to Kyoto for the next round, I think your whine is premature. "How would a carbon trading industry help average Canadians with wealth moving to other countries and people," Nobody wants a carbon trading scheme. That is considered a 'failure' of the reductions to buy the reductions elsewhere. Nor can you buy them from countries that are not themselves reducing emissions under Kyoto ( Annex 1 parties ) like the EU. " to the detriment of our children?" Back on the 'bankrutpcy' fear mongering? There is no evidence that reducing emissions will do anything but improve the life of our children by making more available with less input ( less waste ). "For a Party that has complete tunnel vision concerning this Protocol, the answers should be at your fingertips." Back to the 'partisan' whining? You really are clueless. It doesn't matter which party does it, only that it gets done.

Joe Loria, card carrying Conservative
from Calgary, Canada writes:
It's pretty obvious that Kyoto has become a double-edged sword. Dion was waving it around proudly in the early days after he became leader, thinking he had an effective weapon to use on Harper. Especially with all the other parties and the eco-advocates on his side. But now, look at what ctv.ca reported yesterday ..."Meanwhile, the NDP has said they are no longer fixated on the issue of the Kyoto targets, but instead would like the government to commit to a more stringent environmental plan. " Layton is backing off on his Kyoto rhetoric. Obviously he knows that Southern Ontario manufacturing jobs would be even more severly hit by the double whammy of the high Canadian dollar, and Kyoto implementation bills. Has Dion figured this out yet ? Was he listening to Ignatieff a few months ago when Iggy warned that the Liberal Party was in danger of being hijacked by environmental groups ? Meanwhile that "non-partisan" eco-group, Friends of the Earth, is on a mission to take the feds to court for failing to live up to Rodgriguez's Bill C288. Dion better be making the right noises along side these eco-warriors, or his credibility will take a hit. We still don't know for sure which way that double-edged Kyoto sword will cut. Dion the klutz will probably end up impaling himself on it.

Interested Observer
from Vancouver, Canada writes:
Someone should show some leadership on this issue. Ian wrote sometime ago about how the Montreal CFC accord brought about signifigant changes as other countries followed Canada's lead to the betterment of the world.

Ian St. John from Canada : First-thanks for taking the time to reply.You were going along quite well until when you face a question that you cannot answer, a typical Liberal reaction is attack and you did that quite well. Not to worry, I do not follow into the attack zone just facts and rebutall

You state, " Note; The planet does not care about 'intensity' targets. It reacts to levels of GHGs.......no need to say anything since you know exactly how it all works.

You state," Nobody wants a carbon trading scheme. That is considered a 'failure' of the reductions to buy the reductions elsewhere.'

if you mean "nobody"as a political party, you are quite wrong.I point you to the LPC web site that clearly call for an inter candian carbon trading scheme and also the ability to trade carbon credits (buy or sell internationally)

You state, "The best plan I have seen is the 'carbon tax' with compensating reductions to income and payroll taxes. But how much and how is it applied? Most economists back this plan.".........Most economists? Such as whom? What that really means is head for the hills when most "economists" back a theoretical plan.

"Ian St. John from Canada writes: "Michael Sharp from Not the Sharpest Tool, Canada writes: In 2005 3% of Canadians felt the environment was an important issue. (Globe 2007)." Lie."

Ian St. John calls me a liar. I can't find the Globe link to verify but I do have this from the CBC:"But 13 per cent said the environment was the top issue, up from just four per cent during the election (2006).The pertinent link: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/08/environment-poll.html

3%, 4% whatever.The environment was NOT a big issue for Canada 20 months ago.Adscam was.Now, Adscam is not a big issue now (RoC) but the environment is.

Funny thing about Adscam is that it is still a BIG (REALLY BIG) issue with the Quebecois.I digress.

Stan from Canada
from from all over Canada, Canada writes:
Not the Alliance from In my opinion the Harper Gov't is incompetent, and their paid hacks so brain-dead they have to hijack names to defend their dear leader., Canada writes: Michael Sharp writes: "In 2005 3% of Canadians felt the environment was an important issue. (Globe 2007)." Exactly. And you deride Dion for getting nothing accomplished in Parliament in that environment. Now, when the environment is one of the most important issues amongst voters, the Harper "conservatives" suddenly pretend to embrace climate change and use Dion as a benchmark and an excuse for their doing.... exactly nothing. Of course, I shouldn't say "nothing" they are blaming the liberals... Posted 21/09/07 at 1:37 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not the Alliace, you realize of course that the Liberals had a majority for 13 year and can and did ram any legislation through that they wanted. Right? Why wasn't Dion on his high horse for all those 13 years? He was Environment Minister and Emissions increased!! He was unity Minister when the millions went to adscam!! Where was he then? For the 3 or 4 years Kadhr was in Gitmo under a Liberal Government, please show me the Hansard Entries where he said he should be transfered to Canada!! The guy is a moron. The best gift the Conservatives have ever recieved!!

Graham Hanlon
from Brampton, Canada writes:
Much of the debate on global warming is based on the presumption that a man-made catastrophe is the end game and that only immediate and hugely expensive programs designed to reduce ghg and their impact on the environment is the only cure. Perhaps we haven't yet learned the lessons from the DDT scare in the 60's. A look back at the disasterous effects of that debacle shows thousands and perhaps millions of deaths occurred following an eerily similar strategy now being proposed to combat global warming. What we need to do is to step back, let the emotions cool and look at the issue in a more pragmatic and scientific manner, instead of running around like a bunch of chickens with our heads cut off. As the author Bjorn Lomborg wrote, we need instead to "cool it!"

Dwayne Allan
from Canada writes:
R. Carriere, good evening if your still here Rob, we all know the Libs dragged their feet and allowed the industries to voluntarily reduce without mandatory caps, and we saw how that worked. Some did oblige and step up to the plate, most didn't. Now this is nothing more than the Liberals had done and Harper deserves a pat on the back? Myself I see this as a 'stall and let the next government deal with it' move by Harper. Which in reality could happen in the next year or two. I won't even try to any any of your many questions regarding Kyoto since this is getting dragged out to the point that any numbers or plans previously put forth will obviously be irrelevant now or a least by the time any action towards it takes place. Good questions though, and too bad there was/is so much cynicism to actually take a serious look at how it may or may not have helped the GW/CC problem. First the Liberals were inactive while in power and now the Harper Party are merely paying lip service and doing pretty much the same as the Libs. Meanwhile we have Harper, Baird and previously Ambrose airing our laundry and BS-ing the rest of the world with cheap politics and standing hand in hand with the biggest violators waving to the cameras trying to convince Canadians this will improve things. Leaving this to the industry and 40 year goals aren't what should be considered moving forward. For example Harper's cap theory for the oil industry actually allows greater emissions while appearing on paper to do otherwise. Since when did having the fox watch the henhouse make good sense?

Sam M
from Montreal, Canada writes:
Dwayne Allan from Canada-ya stupid idiot. ask carrierre for an opinion? he is a old conserative hack and an idiot like you. No one respects his points. he is a flabbergaster. you should look to smart people figure it out you stupid HACK!!

Larfing Outloud
from Virgin Islands (British) writes:
Sam M: you are my FAVOURITE cartoon character. I love the way you wear your stetson (and your spurs) and tell all the other cartoon characters to "shove off" (including that pesky chicken!)

Please continue telling the other cartoon characters to "shove off" Sam M. I feel so foolish saying this but...Sam M, you are my FAVOURITE cartoon charater! And I love the way you "pretend" you can't spell stuff. That is so hilarious. Keep it up Sam M. Maybe I'll meet you someday and get your autograph.

Ian St. John
from Canada writes:
"R. Carriere from Canada writes:You state, " Note; The planet does not care about 'intensity' targets. It reacts to levels of GHGs.......no need to say anything since you know exactly how it all works."

You think the greenhouse effect is dependent on GDP??? How can I characterise this response without being insulting.. hmmm..

Ian St. John
from Canada writes:
"Michael Sharp from Paradise Found, Canada writes: Ian St. John, an apology please. "

O.K. I'm sorry that you are not the sharpest tool.

But votes trump polls since votes mean something. People put effort into getting to a voting station and voting for the green party KNOWING that they had no chance meant vSomething. OTOH anyone can make polls say whatever they wish by selecting the right phrasing of the questions.

L Harder
from Richmond, Canada writes:
I don't understand how Harper can align so much with the discredited and unpopular Bush administration on this and other issues. Even the Americans have finally woken up to the guys ineptness. Dion (who has an unerring ability to not go in for the kill) is only now talking about it. Politically this is the key to Harper's downfall. Constantly make obvious the link to the Bush administration, and Canada's viseral dislike of Bush will vote Harper out.

Still Learning at 77
from Canada writes:
What are the chances Mr Harpers speech at the UN will be approved by Mr Bush before released to the public. The secret North American Union Boys (SPP) have everything under control and You and I do not have a say. Just the likes of Thomas d'Aquino of CCCE is allowed input to the scheme.

Ian St. John
from Canada writes:
"Larfing Outloud from Virgin Islands (British) writes: That is so funny and witty!!"

Damned with faint praise again.. darn. You are welcome anyway.

One has to keep ones sense of humor about these idiots, having been corrected, demand an apology for being corrected.. It is to laugh. The idea that a newspaper poll about what has the nations attention at the moment represents what is important to people is so silly I had to counter in kind.

More to the point is that people are recognising the envrionment and sustanable economics as the central challenge of the twenty-first century.

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive,
threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate
option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments
that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

What does moderation mean?

The Globe and Mail is committed to encouraging intelligent discourse among our readers and to creating a forum
where diverse views and opinions on a wide range of topics can be aired. In our continuing efforts to
facilitate a dynamic online conversation we have created two distinct types of forums.

The first type of conversation is a semi-moderated or reactively moderated conversation. Comments submitted to a
semi-moderated conversation pass through a filter that automatically detects inappropriate language or other issues.
The comment then appears on the website.

The second type of conversation is fully moderated. In a fully moderated conversation, every comment is reviewed
by a Globe and Mail editor before it appears on the site. While we will attempt to publish as many comments as possible
there will be occasions where the volume of comments makes it impossible to publish every appropriate submission.
Only registered users of the site may contribute to an online conversation and in all cases the policy
described in our Editor’s note must be followed.

How do I report a comment?

On semi-moderated conversations we encourage our community of readers to assist with the moderation
by alerting us any time a published comment violates our stated policy. Please do not alert us if you
disagree with a comment, find a spelling error or are bothered by multiple postings. Once you submit
a complaint about a comment, a message will be sent immediately to the editors of the site who will
determine whether the remark belongs on the site.

Share this article

What are tags?

A tag is a keyword or descriptive term supplied by our editorial staff used to associate related articles with one another.
Tags make it easier for you to find other stories that share the same theme or topic with the article you’re currently reading.